[ffrancone]

Perhaps, with the new Homeland Security Act the Federal Government could install video cameras in every bedroom in America and immediately arrest anyone who violates the sodomy law. Would that make you happy?

Is your point that sodomy laws are bad laws or that they are unconstitutional laws? These are two VERY different issues that liberals usually confuse.

Sodomy laws are silly and unenforceable. But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy. That demeans the constitution and cannot in any manner be regarded as within the intent of the authors of the constitution. So the solution should be legislative, not judicial.

I wish the Supreme Court would butt out of this. Constitutional mischief on the order of Roe vs Wade is the probable outcome.

[breakem]

If I may side-bust. I believe have sex is a way to oursue liberty and happenness. I believe it is a human right and not subject to government control except for kids and so forth. The constitution does not claim to list all rights. In fact it refers to other rights which we have which are not listed.

Rights are not subject to plurality vote.

May I ask why you think the government has a role in the issue of adults have sex with each other?

[breakem]

have sex is a way to oursue .....should read......... having sex is a way to pursue..........

[Hodar]

But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

One could argue that the right to partake in this activity, is a right soley incumbent upon the individuals involved.

[lady lawyer]

I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. There is a big difference between arguing that sodomy laws should be repealed, and saying that the Constitution requires their repeal because the Constitution harbors a right to engage in homosexual activity. As Justice White said in Bowers, you'd have to ignore 2,000 years of human history to find a Constitional "right" to homosexual acts.

Libertarians here like to think that the government should butt out. But that is an argument for the legislature. For the Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to homosexual activity is judicial activism of the worst kind.

[monday]

"But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy"

The constitution was written to proscribe the powers of government in order to prevent oppression. Just because certain activties are not listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean they should be prohibited.

To give government the right to legeslate every aspect of our lives not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights would make a mockery of the FREEDOMS our constitution was written to protect.

The constitution doesn't include a RIGHT eat the foods of your choice. Does that mean if some legislation decides to pass laws that mandate what you can eat and when, that this would be constitutional as well?

[mvpel]

Sodomy laws are silly and unenforceable. But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy. That demeans the constitution and cannot in any manner be regarded as within the intent of the authors of the constitution. So the solution should be legislative, not judicial.

The Fourth Amendment enumerates a right to be secure in one's person, papers, and effects. It represents a broad right to freedom from government intrusion into one's private affairs without just cause. And consensual sex in one's own bedroom is about as private an affair as you can name.

And further, the Constitution does not "grant" rights. The Constitution includes every right you can concieve of under the Ninth Amendment, which states that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not a right.

[templar]

But there is no respect in which the constitution should be read to include a RIGHT to commit sodomy

Ammendments IV, IX, and X.

The government is , basically, suposed to stay out of peoples private affairs. I'm not pro homo by any means, but I see sodomy laws as unwarranted government intrusion. Regulating public behavior would be a different situation.